"Massachusetts Republicans are desperately scrambling to find a strong Senate candidate to replace Scott Brown, with some even trying to persuade Mitt Romneys wife or son to jump into the race to avert another electoral disaster.

... Other GOP leaders also raised the prospect of Mitts eldest son, Tagg, launching a surprise Senate campaign. Tagg Romney was a close campaign adviser and surrogate for his father and is a successful businessman living in Belmont."

Wrong. Scott Brown, outed and despised RINO, voted FOR RomneyCARE/ObamaCARE and CREATED it.

Mitt RomneyCARE (D, Shapeshifter): "I'm not running as the Republican view or a continuation of Republican values. That's not what brings me to the race. (Backstabber Romney Video, accessed 9/19/07)

"We don't intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the Party over to the so-called moderates wouldnt make any sense at all."" -- President Ronald Reagan

I believe that all Americans deserve health care coverage, but I am opposed to Obamacare, voted to repeal it and will continue to support its repeal in Congress. With its higher taxes and cuts to Medicare, Obamacare is a bad deal for Massachusetts. Until we are able to repeal the entire bill, I will continue working to get rid of the worst components. I have introduced multiple bills to repeal the 2.3 percent medical device tax that would crush the more than 200 medical device companies in our state that provide thousands of good-paying jobs. I believe states should be allowed to implement health care reform that works best for them on an individual basis, like we have done here in Massachusetts, without raising taxes or cutting care to seniors."

So if you believe what a proven liar says, you will be right at home, back at DU, Tagg.

Romney (Carpetbagger shapeshifter, D, RINO): I'm very clear I think, to the people across the Commonwealth my "R" didn't stand so much for Republican as it does for reform." (Flip-flop chameleon artiste and Mitt RomneyCARE Video, accessed 9/19/07)

"A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency or simply to swell its numbers." -- President Ronald Reagan

I don’t agree with most of her points, but that doesn’t make her a troll. One of our biggest problems here on FR is that instead of discussing things, we shoot people down with insults. Frankly, I’m much more suspicious of the posters who are spewing insults than I am of people who are raising points with which most of us may not agree.

The Dems would like nothing better than for us to break down into a fragmented band of warring individuals, each one convinced he is the only true conservative and ready to obliterate everyone who disagrees with him on a single point. We’ve got to work out a strategy. Nobody can get everything they want, but we aren’t getting anything right now.

It's true that the choice in 2012 was squishy RINO Brown and the leftist Warren. But that's only because the R party in Mass chose the squishy RINO. They need to choose a more conservative candidate even if he/she is libertarian because our biggest problem is the growth of government.

You do not seem to understand that having worked in government. You are in fact part of the problem regardless of your party affiliation. We have the highest taxes (at all levels, local state federal) in the history of the country. We have the highest public and private debt in the history of the country. The federal government invades local issues with liberal and leftist policies. We have to slash government. Scott Brown did not do that, in fact he did the opposite, I linked to his pork votes above.

Which is why I advocate complete and utter destruction of the liberal Republican party

I agree with that. The problem with people like CGGM is they are always trying to squeeze a bit of juice out of the dried up lemon. There is no doubt that conservatives will fail to get 51 seats as we transition to a new party. There simply won't be enough candidates in enough states and enough votes. The two existing parties will do their best to keep their duopoly (monopoly really). But destroying the squishy party is the only way to obtain a principled party. There are too many CGGMs in the party to do it any other way. It is a long term strategy and in the short term we will have to be a minority party.

It would be wonderful if Scott Brown or Elizabeth Warren could be replaced by a true conservative. Do you think that is possible? Trust me, no one wants smaller government more than I. I admit I cannot create a perfect government, but I can promise you that if it’s done my way, we won’t go backward. I will NEVER surrender to a Democrat—NEVER!!

If you're calling me a troll, I've probably been here far longer than you. I have been here from almost the beginning and I recall when Free Republic had a quality of poster that knew we were fighting liberalism by fighting Democrats. Something happened in the last few years and now Free Republic totally ignores the threats of Democrats and it has become popular to hate Republicans and in some extreme cases, it's preferable to elect Democrat--even Obama.

I have no respect for this mindset. Obama is pure evil and Romney would have been far preferable. Rommney vowed to repeal Obamacare but that didn't matter.

I take great offense at you inferring I am anything but a 100% conservative. You obviously don't know me. There is no one more conservative than I. Pay attention, I am only talking about a strategy to get rid of Democrats which is absolutely necessary to advance a conservative agenda.

I see Freepers mired in their idea of perfection and if they can't have 100% of what they want, they prefer nothing--they will end up with nothing.

I take great offense at you inferring I am anything but a 100% conservative. You obviously don't know me. There is no one more conservative than I. Pay attention, I am only talking about a strategy to get rid of Democrats which is absolutely necessary to advance a conservative agenda.

You have precisely identified the problem with your strategy which is that there is no step two in it. You may not realize that the two parties are Stupid and Evil. You assume naively that "getting rid" of the Evil party will solve our problems or even just one problem like Obamacare. All historical evidence points against that. With Stupid party control of Congress and the Presidency we grew government and that government is now being used against us. The Stupid party gave us the EPA which is shutting down our coal plants so that we will now freeze in the dark. The Stupid party gave us socialized senior drugs which is leading to drying up of new and useful drugs (the feds will basically only pay for cheap generic drugs). The Stupid party either supported or gave us countless other enlargements of Federal power along with unlimited illegal immigration.

Your strategy of unconditional support of the Stupid party has failed for decades. It is time for a new strategy, not the same old failed strategy.

OK I was wrong on the stimulus but not Obmacare.
Still do you really think a Ted Cruz could win in Massachusetts or Illinois? Would you rather have two Dick Durbans or Liawathas? Or Mark Kirk and Scott Brown?
You’re advocating that the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Having the majority is good.

I’d also argue that Akin and Murdoch did more damage to the Republican brand and the pro life movement then a 100 Romney’s.

"Electing liberal republicans is as shameful as electing liberal democrats."

It's worse. Because you have them enacting the Democrat agenda and getting the rest of the Republican party blamed for bad policy (all the while the Dems clean up at the ballot box). The apologists on FR pimping for liberal RINO trojan horses are trolls beneath contempt.

There are 28 good solid Conservatives (revised from my previous post), 9 marginally good conservatives, and the potential in certain states (states that have already 1 solid or marginal) of 8 more. That’s a 45 conservative Senator ceiling.

The other seats in states such as CA, CO, DE, etc are so liberal I don’t even think a marginally conservative candidate could win.

The question would be, if we could could 45 fairly conservative types in, could they convince 6 moderates to vote their way?

MA is never going to elect a Rand Paul type...it’s a William Weld kind of state.

No actually I’m a pretty avid reader and up on a lot of history. Thing is reaching back a couple of hundred years to make a point is something liberals love to do and a sign that someone is losing the debate.

Every time someone critisises Islam out comes”Well the Catholics conducted the inquisition”

Or anything that has to do with the collapse of black culture out comes the slavery card.

OK I was wrong on the stimulus but not Obmacare. Still do you really think a Ted Cruz could win in Massachusetts or Illinois?

In a general election against a leftist like Warren? Quite possible although it will take money and national support. Just keep in mind the establishment media will portray them the same way they portray any R candidate so no difference there. The D establishment will throw the same amount of money at the race as well. The problem is winning the primary against the likes of yourself: liberal RINO appeasers.

Many, if not most of the people claiming to be conservative and espousing of conservatives are at best, moderates.

We cannot move in a positive direction when one group (of conservatives) backs politicians like Rubio who want amnesty/DREAM acts, Another is ready to accept a moderate stance on homosexuals (as in allowing their sexual desires to form legislative policy). another group is ready to throw conservative pols with 90%+ records to the dogs over ONE stupid statement, Another group wants concessions to the Abortion lobby in order to secure winning votes for the GOP, ANOTHER group compares Romney to Reagan and condemns any who would put principle over party and yet ANOTHER that thinks economic concerns and feasibility trump the need for a border fence rather than a smart fence.

In my post history alone, you will see countless battles fought over the above issues with freepers who swear up and down that they are rock ribbed conservatives and how dare I question their conservatism indignation.

How? I think its self-evident how.

Now if these are the abject idiots we have as an army to go to war with, I put to you that we should instead box up the wife and kids and head for the hills to avoid the slaughter.

I spent years fighting the landuse wars against the BLM and Sierra. We lost that war exactly because of the same enemies within. People who wore their politics on their sleeves and rolled them up when it interfered with their personal little problems.

So, In light of the fact that every single point I made above is easily and multiply proven (for none of these things are isolated incidents, rather current standard behavior for conservatives), we have exactly one logical and rational choice to move ahead in a positive and useful direction.

Purge the ranks, take the hit and stop wasting time, money and resource fighting the fairweather flock.

But a mere handful of us are willing to do it. The moderates run wild, trash actual conservatives (Palin being the most obvious example) and no one with any voice in the movement does s..t to stop it.

We need fewer Coulters/insert moderate freeper or pundit here, and more honest voices. And until the above happens, I honestly think everything else is a waste of my and everyone else time.

And again, before the moderates out there return to calling me names and bitching, they need to disprove a single point I made. Which, to date, not one has. Lots of bitching, ducking and ignoring, but no disproving.

I dont agree with most of her points, but that doesnt make her a troll. One of our biggest problems here on FR is that instead of discussing things, we shoot people down with insults.

These are the very same arguments with the very same person since before and during the election....with the same results. We discussed and discussed this for months. Most of this forum, and the owner disagrees with backing moderates but the poster ignores that.

Frankly, Im much more suspicious of the posters who are spewing insults than I am of people who are raising points with which most of us may not agree.

if you think Sarah Palin could have won against BO in 2012 you are delusional. The MSM would have had an even bigger field day with Sarah as the GOP 2012 presidential nominee than they did with her as the GOP’s VP candidate in 2008? Also Sarah [nor any other GOP sacrificial lamb] will stand a chance against the MSM’s next offering to the electorate in 2016: Hillary.

One of the things I have come to accept in my time since 98 reading and later posting on FR is that people like you who scream ‘don’t you dare question my conservatism!!!” the loudest are the ones whose posts tie in the closest with the OPPOSITE of FR’s existential statement and purpose.

Since all we have to go by here are the words of the posters (since most of us are just nicnames and unsearchable/knowable as actual people.

I happen to use my real name as a handle and encourage people to look me up as I have held my positions a hell of a long time, though some longer than others. You and Johnny use nicks, which is fine. But here’s the difference...

Johnny’s posts are almost if not lockstep with the ideals of Free Republic, it’s founder and the ideals of conservatism.

Yours encourage compromise of principle to elect moderates for the sole purpose of ‘winning’. So tell me this. In order to ‘win’ are you willing to elect pro choice candidates and thus sacrifice the very lives of children to ‘win’?

Yes or no.

Are you willing to willing to elect anti-gun moderates and thus sacrifice the 2nd Ammendment to ‘win’?

Yes or no.

Are you willing to elect mocerates who will reach across the asile and ‘compromise the principles of Free Republic and America to ‘win’?

Yes or no/

Before you post another rationalization for continued GOP BS, we need to know EXACTLY where YOU stand. Because simple logic says you cannot have these things both ways.

Lastly, if you are willing to state ‘Yes’ on ANY of these positions, much less all of them, you are flat out lying by calling yourself a conservative. Because conservatives do NOT accept the sacrifice, nor are they willing to trade the lives and souls of children, the right of self defense/liberty granted to us by God, nor the principles we guide our very existence by for so fleeting a thing as a ‘win’.

Does principle matter and do you feel that principle is situational...as with situational ethics? Yes or no.

If yes, then no more need be said as your position on the rest is clear. If not, please explain in detail why not.

I, and I suspect MANY of us want to see your answers. In fact, as always when I ask this question (which the compromise wing has yet to do anything other than duck) I’ll open it up to any of the compromise wing of ‘conservatism’ to address.

They conveniently. as do most like them on FR, claim that. But it’s a mathematical certainty that if they actually all voted for one, there would be a winning conservative.

That being an absolute fact, the blame for losing moderates falls squarely on their shoulders. We told them we will not vote for mod/liberals. They have no excuse. It never was and never will be ‘our’ fault since we made it clear from the beginning they would NOT get our support.

Well, first off, I told a friend about being called a "liberal suck up" here on FR today and she laughed. Of course, principle matters to me but my principle is different than yours or many others here on FR.

My overriding principle is to defeat Democrats at every opportunity. I know the difference between you and me. You want to create a pure Republican party before you set your sights on the Democrats and I view Democrats as the enemy and I'll defeat one of them any way I can.

Now, I fully expect to be flamed and called names for this but it's all true.

There is no virtue in deliberately losing.

Let me tell you a story to accurately portray my position. For many years I worked in the Iowa House of Representatives for the Chairman of the Human Resources Committee. He was very conservative and highly respected. We worked in a partnership, we both had the same goals--we despise liberalism and the very thought of killing an unborn child in disgusting and appalling.

One time shortly before an election, I was at a function and talking to one of the high profile conservative activists in Iowa. He told me he didn't think he could bring himself to vote for the Republican woman who was the rep for his district. I looked him right in the eye and told him that if he wanted to keep my boss (I knew the respect he had for him) in his position as Chairman of the Human Resources Committee, he HAD to go in the voting booth and vote for the RINO. He knew I was right. Sometimes you just have to do things you'd rather not but this is the way the game is played. Now, are you going to say I have no principles?

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.